Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay 33 33

[RockMyAmadeus]

Deadworld #10 is a good example where the back cover ad created demand and value for the book

 

No one is arguing that an ad cannot create demand and value.

 

But it's NOT the Crow's first appearance. That is Caliber Presents #1.

So, Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of Wolverine? Is that last panel an advertisement of sorts for the next issue? I will always believe 180 is his first appearance, and that will never change, but I'm with you on the gobbledygook's of the world. Not 1st appearances, but ads.

 

I don't know how to respond to this.

 

 

[MrWeen]

 

You can answer no, no,no all you want but that doesn't make you correct.

 

Very true.

 

Of course, I didn't answer "no, no, no." I specifically denied your specific statements. There's a subtle but important distinction there.

 

What makes someone correct is the accuracy of their information, not saying "no" or "yes."

 

So...whose information is accurate?

 

If we are talking about a preview of a book like Green Wake 7, Agents 1, House of Mystery Annual 1 or a single image of a character like Gwenpool who does NOT appear in the book beyond the cover I just don't see how you can argue against those examples as first appearances.

 

I don't have any knowledge of "Green Wake 7", am not familiar with the preview in House of Mystery Annual 1, and I don't know who first appears in Agents 1. Do you mean Agents 6?

 

And if you can't see as you say, I'll explain it again: if I take a handful of pages....like Image has done for the better part of 20 years...that are pages out of the upcoming Comic Book X #Y, and put them in a current publication as a "preview", that is not a first appearance...it is a preview.

 

Common sense, reason, and the definitions of words tells us that a "preview" of something is NOT the thing itself, which is what you're attempting to redefine. It is literally a PRE-view, that is, a glimpse, a look, a taste of something BEFORE it officially debuts.

 

Is it cool that the first few pages of Walking Dead #1 appear in Agents #6 and Capes #1? Yes, definitely. Does that increase interest in (and usually the value of) these particular issues? Absolutely.

 

Is it literally the first appearance of these characters in published form? Yes, and no one's arguing against that.

 

But the phrase "first appearance" has a slightly different meaning than "first time this character ever appeared in/on a product intended for public consumption", because comic books are a storytelling artform. If it doesn't tell a story, it's NOT sequential art. That is the defining characteristic of sequential art - it's art that's sequential, meaning, "it tells a story", regardless of what that story is.

 

In THAT context, it doesn't matter if characters appear in ads, in previews (also ads), on Pop-Tart boxes, in TV shows, on billboards, articles of clothing, lunchboxes, or anywhere else outside of the context of a STORY.

 

As has been mentioned many times, the first appearance of Harley Quinn isn't in a comic book...it's in a TV show. But that's not a form that is readily collectable, so what have people turned to? Her first comic book appearance, which has tremendous value.

 

Context, context, context. Context is critical, and defines what "first appearance" really means...and this understanding goes back decades. No one calls the first appearance of Batman "Action Comics #12", even though it is literally true that Batman's likeness first appears in print prior to Detective Comics #27. The hobby has known this for decades, and still doesn't care, because it's just an ad.

 

Does that make Action #12 more important than #11? Not really. And certainly not more than #13, which is the 4th Supes cover.

 

In the comic book world "first appearance" has a specific meaning that doesn't necessarily coincide with the first time a character appears in print.

 

Again they not be worth more that what the market has incorrectly deemed to be the first appearance ( see X-Factor 24 as a example ) but an error by the large collecting community doesn't change facts.

 

Not relevant to this discussion, because we're not discussing such misunderstandings.

 

We can disagree RMA but your definition only serves your argument and does not represent the truth.

 

One more time: it's not my definition. I didn't invent it; it's been around since the beginning of comics fandom. Obviously, the definition serves my argument, because my argument is based on standard definitions, context, and history. And you continuing to say it "doesn't represent the truth" or some other form of that idea, while being unable or unwilling to provide anything from historical literature to refute it, doesn't make it so.

 

If we can't decide on a universal definition they we should go with the literal definition.

 

That is just terrible reasoning. "We can't agree because I reject standard definitions, history, and context, so let's just go with my definition which ignores all of those things."

 

How is that statement not entirely self-serving...?

 

It is silliness on a grand scale.

 

That doesn't mean that Hulk 181 cannot be worth more than 180. All it means is that 181 cannot be called a first appearance.

 

True.

 

"It's only you Johnny-come-latelies that are trying to redefine terms that have been accepted for literally decades that are "making up" "arbitrary" definitions."

 

As far as this statement it's not wise to make assumptions when you know nothing about me. I'm the only one arguing against you so it is directed at me.

 

Of course it was directed at you. I said "you", in response to you. But it wasn't solely directed at you. You are hardly the only person who has argued for "ads" and the like to be considered "true" first appearances, which is why the phrase was plural.

 

And I know nothing about you...? On the contrary, I know much about you, because of what you say on these boards, just as anyone can know much about me, because of the same. But that's a philosophical tangent not related to this discussion.

 

First off my definition isn't arbitrary at all. In fact it is quite clear: Wherever a character first appears in a printed publication, then that's the first appearance.

 

Technically correct. Contextually wrong.

 

As for the rest of your laughable statement, I have been collecting comics for over 30 years. I don't think that qualifies me as a "Johnny-come-lately.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. There are people who have been collecting comics for 50 years who know very little about the hobby. Those people, when discussing the hobby, will be "Johnny-come-latelies" because they are uninformed...not because of their length of time collecting comics.

 

Just curious though, what do you think about Gwenpool. Is Deadpool's Secret Secret Wars 2 variant her first appearance or are you going against the marketplace and sticking with your definition of what a first appearance is?

 

 

I have no idea. I rarely deal in new material. You're going to have to provide some more information.

 

I'm not trying to be rude but you might be stuck in the past a bit. If you don't deal in new material than how can you be informed about the ever changing comic collectible market? Maybe your definition of a first appearance is simply....um...dated.

 

I do apologize for the Agents 1 typo though and my response to the other guy's post in your format was only done in jest.

[Jaydogrules]

It sounds to me like "certain people" have stocked up on (or only own) the much less desirable cameo and/or ad "appearances" of some characters and are upset that they aren't "worth" much (or anything) compared to the industry standard actual first appearances and/or first full appearances of the characters.

 

Everything RMA has said on this subject is 100% accurate.

 

-J.

Man.. I wish I had "stocked up" on Hulk 180's.

 

They can still be had for very reasonable prices. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[revat]

aren't we at a point with information accessibility now that anyone who cares THAT much about a given character or buying a given book can do a bit of their own research and make their own somewhat informed decisions based on their own preferences? And then act accordingly based on any new information they get or new discussion they hear?

 

If you're selling, tell the truth you would want to hear if you were a potential buyer. Or say nothing at all, and let the people decide on their own perceptions and preferences, right or not. Do as much research as you like if you're buying, that's it.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I'm not trying to be rude but you might be stuck in the past a bit. If you don't deal in new material than how can you be informed about the ever changing comic collectible market? Maybe your definition of a first appearance is simply....um...dated.

 

Because history is not "ever changing", except to those trying to revise it. I deal in the comic collectible market every day, and have for many years...I don't deal in new comics. There's a substantial difference. One does not need to deal in new comics to be completely informed about the comic collectible market, which deals solely with back issues.

 

That is, of course, unless we've gone completely round the bend and now consider new comics to be nothing but collectibles, produced, marketed, and consumed solely as collectibles.

 

I hope we haven't gotten to that point, yet.

 

I don't need to know what came out this week to know that the definition of a "first appearance" in the context of comic books is based on reason, and has been around since the beginning of comics fandom.

 

"My" definition of a first appearance isn't dated, it's just accurate, and based on context.

 

Are you going to provide more information, as requested...?

 

I do apologize for the Agents 1 typo though and my response to the other guy's post in your format was only done in jest.

 

Cool.

 

 

[MrWeen]

 

I'm not trying to be rude but you might be stuck in the past a bit. If you don't deal in new material than how can you be informed about the ever changing comic collectible market? Maybe your definition of a first appearance is simply....um...dated.

 

Because history is not "ever changing", except to those trying to revise it. I deal in the comic collectible market every day, and have for many years...I don't deal in new comics. There's a substantial difference. One does not need to deal in new comics to be completely informed about the comic collectible market, which deals solely with back issues.

 

That is, of course, unless we've gone completely round the bend and now consider new comics to be nothing but collectibles, produced, marketed, and consumed solely as collectibles.

 

I hope we haven't gotten to that point, yet.

 

I don't need to know what came out this week to know that the definition of a "first appearance" in the context of comic books is based on reason, and has been around since the beginning of comics fandom.

 

"My" definition of a first appearance isn't dated, it's just accurate, and based on context.

 

Are you going to provide more information, as requested...?

 

I do apologize for the Agents 1 typo though and my response to the other guy's post in your format was only done in jest.

 

Cool.

 

 

Are you going to provide more information, as requested...?

 

One more time: it's not my definition. I didn't invent it; it's been around since the beginning of comics fandom. Obviously, the definition serves my argument, because my argument is based on standard definitions, context, and history. And you continuing to say it "doesn't represent the truth" or some other form of that idea, while being unable or unwilling to provide anything from historical literature to refute it, doesn't make it so.

 

Does it have to be peer reviewed?

 

Wait I have a better idea. I'll use OPG's defintion:

 

 

 

 

Hmmmmm so a first appearance is when a character appears for the first time ANYWHERE.

 

I see nothing in that definition that says anything about context, story or that the inclusion of the character in sequential art as a requirement.

 

Here is your quote again:

 

" And you continuing to say it "doesn't represent the truth" or some other form of that idea, while being unable or unwilling to provide anything from historical literature to refute it, doesn't make it so."-RMA

 

I think now I have provided you one example.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2015 by MrWeen

[LOC Collectibles]

[B-Smooth]

It sounds to me like "certain people" have stocked up on (or only own) the much less desirable cameo and/or ad "appearances" of some characters and are upset that they aren't "worth" much (or anything) compared to the industry standard actual first appearances and/or first full appearances of the characters.

 

Everything RMA has said on this subject is 100% accurate.

 

-J.

Man.. I wish I had "stocked up" on Hulk 180's.

 

They can still be had for very reasonable prices. (thumbs u

 

-J.

Maybe in Jaydog money. In dungeon world, affordable, or reasonably priced books are more like New Universe titles.

[vaillant]

I'm not trying to be rude but you might be stuck in the past a bit. If you don't deal in new material than how can you be informed about the ever changing comic collectible market? Maybe your definition of a first appearance is simply....um...dated.

Mr. Ween, aside from all this ongoing discussion, this is either an unintelligent remark or you have to explain what you mean by "dated".

It’s not that because I start calling a thing differently than it is, that it changes reality. That’s also the illusion behind a good deal of false reasoning today.

 

RMA may be occasionally "exasperating" in his argumentations, but he is absolutely right here.

 

I don't need to know what came out this week to know that the definition of a "first appearance" in the context of comic books is based on reason, and has been around since the beginning of comics fandom.

 

"My" definition of a first appearance isn't dated, it's just accurate, and based on context.

Precisely. (thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

Does it have to be peer reviewed?

 

Wait I have a better idea. I'll use OPG's defintion:

 

Hmmmmm so a first appearance is when a character appears for the first time ANYWHERE.

 

I see nothing in that definition that says anything about context, story or that the inclusion of the character in sequential art as a requirement.

 

Still trying, huh? We've already been down this road, did you forget...? Need we rehash this argument again...?

 

The context of that definition is where that definition appears, which is in the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide."

 

Here is your quote again:

 

" And you continuing to say it "doesn't represent the truth" or some other form of that idea, while being unable or unwilling to provide anything from historical literature to refute it, doesn't make it so."-RMA

 

I think now I have provided you one example.

 

No, you haven't. You've only provided the OPG definition, which is a single sentence that neither proves, nor disproves, your contention. "The absence of evidence is not evidence."

 

You need to find something that positively supports your theory, not something that can be taken either way.

 

As has been stated here in these discussions before, the OPG definition is a context based definition.

 

It is the "Official Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide"...if you asked Bob Overstreet about books like Agents #6, I would lay great money...knowing the history of Bob Overstreet publications....that he would say "no, that's not at all what we mean by debut'."

 

It is a comic book definition, in the pages of a comic book price guide.

 

Over and over again, it is context, not technicality, that determines meaning.

 

Still don't believe me...?

 

Super Friends #1 is described as "1st Super Friends" in the OPG. Issue #7 has "1st app Wonder Twins and Seraph." #9 is "1st app Ice Maiden."

 

But, how can that be...? The comic book is based on the cartoon, and since we know that the Super Friends FIRST appeared on TV, and the Wonder Twins, and Ice also first appeared on TV...which, I think falls under the term "anywhere"....then Overstreet flatly contradicts himself...

 

...right?

 

Orrrr....do we look at the context of the definition and these listings, and realize that Overstreet is talking about comic books, not cartoons, or Pop-Tarts, or T-Shirts, or billboards, etc....?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA may be occasionally "exasperating" in his argumentations, but he is absolutely right here.

 

I'm only "exasperating" to those who don't like to be disagreed with.

 

 

[Jaydogrules]

It sounds to me like "certain people" have stocked up on (or only own) the much less desirable cameo and/or ad "appearances" of some characters and are upset that they aren't "worth" much (or anything) compared to the industry standard actual first appearances and/or first full appearances of the characters.

 

Everything RMA has said on this subject is 100% accurate.

 

-J.

Man.. I wish I had "stocked up" on Hulk 180's.

 

They can still be had for very reasonable prices. (thumbs u

 

-J.

Maybe in Jaydog money. In dungeon world, affordable, or reasonably priced books are more like New Universe titles.

 

Touche.

 

Although Jaydog money isn't what it used to be either nowadays. Hence why I've been trolling the copper and modern threads of late.

 

-J.

[fastballspecial]

RMA may be occasionally "exasperating" in his argumentations, but he is absolutely right here.

 

I'm only "exasperating" to those who don't like to be disagreed with.

 

 

Untrue some just believe less is more.

 

[B-Smooth]

It sounds to me like "certain people" have stocked up on (or only own) the much less desirable cameo and/or ad "appearances" of some characters and are upset that they aren't "worth" much (or anything) compared to the industry standard actual first appearances and/or first full appearances of the characters.

 

Everything RMA has said on this subject is 100% accurate.

 

-J.

Man.. I wish I had "stocked up" on Hulk 180's.

 

They can still be had for very reasonable prices. (thumbs u

 

-J.

Maybe in Jaydog money. In dungeon world, affordable, or reasonably priced books are more like New Universe titles.

 

Touche.

 

Although Jaydog money isn't what it used to be either nowadays. Hence why I've been trolling the copper and modern threads of late.

 

-J.

 

Yes. The dregs of the comic book universe... those copper people.

[vaillant]

RMA may be occasionally "exasperating" in his argumentations, but he is absolutely right here.

 

I'm only "exasperating" to those who don't like to be disagreed with.

 

 

Untrue some just believe less is more.

He meant that he insists with those, not that he can’t be exasperating when he insists or is verbose in other instances…

 

He is absolutely right here, and he's not even much verbose.

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA may be occasionally "exasperating" in his argumentations, but he is absolutely right here.

 

I'm only "exasperating" to those who don't like to be disagreed with.

 

 

Untrue some just believe less is more.

 

And for many, "less is confusion." "Lengthiness" isn't an issue for people who believe in things being clear, accurate, and understandable. It's only an issue for people who think it's hard work to read a few paragraphs, and want everything reduced to easily digestable sound bites. "Easily digestable sound bites" leads to easy misunderstanding and non-comprehension.

 

God forbid, we should ever read anything longer than a tweet.

 

 

But, as usual "the way I express myself rules, the way you express yourself sucks."

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Yes. The dregs of the comic book universe... those copper people.

 

[B-Smooth]

 

Yes. The dregs of the comic book universe... those copper people.

 

Just trying to get a line in your signature area.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Yes. The dregs of the comic book universe... those copper people.

 

Just trying to get a line in your signature area.

 

You'd have to say something that you believed was true...

 

[500Club]

How you see it is irrelevant.

That's become clear.

 

John Donne said 'no man is an island'. Clearly, he was wrong.